THE BASIS OF THE CHARGES IN CASE AGAINST TRIMET

(a) Defendants and each of them established and approved systematic bus route schedules that were too tight, which they knew or should have known would cause driver safety lapses.
(b) Defendants and each of them established, approved and refused to change unsafe
left-side outer rear view mirrors throughout Tri Met bus system, including bus No. 2514. Defendants and each of them knew or should have known these mirrors created a hazardous driver blind spot during left turns.


(c) Defendants and each of them established, approved and refused to change an unsafe seat, left outside mirror and A-pillar arrangement throughout the Tri Met bus system, including bus No. 2514. Defendants and each of them knew or should have known this arrangement created a hazardous driver blind spot during left turns, particularly for short drivers such as Defendant Day.
Defendants and each of them maintained and approved a driver training system that they knew or should have known trained Tri Met drivers, including Defendant Day, to regularly commit illegal and unsafe driving operations, including but not limited to:(TEXT REMOVED)

Defendants and each of them maintained and approved a culture within Tri Met that failed to place safe and defensive driving as the top and overriding priority of Tri Met. Defendants and each of them knew or should have known that this culture was communicated to all Tri Met drivers, and that it substantially assisted, encouraged and produced unnecessary and unreasonable safety lapses on the part
of many Tri Met drivers, including on the part of Defendant Day at the time of the April 24, 2010, crash at Broadway and Northwest Glisan in Portland.
(TEXT REMOVED)

The driver seat, left outside mirror and A-pillar arrangement in bus No. 2514 was unreasonably dangerous to Danielle Sale and Plaintiff Gittings as they walked across Broadway in the protected crosswalk, in that it created a hazardous driver blind spot during left turns, particularly for short drivers such as Defendant Day.
(TEXT REMOVED)

Beginning in 2005, and continuing each year thereafter to the present, each of Defendants New Flyer of America, Inc., New Flyer Industries, Inc., New Flyer Industries Canada ULC, Hadley Products Corp., Acme Specialty Manufacturing Co., and Rosco Inc. knew or reasonably should have known that a left outside rear view mirror assembly mounted at or just below a driver’s eye level, both by itself and in combination with the A pillar design of the New Flyer D40 LF and similar buses, creates an unreasonably dangerous view obstruction and poses a substantial risk of harm to persons or property.